digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Why Torture Doesn't Make Us Safer

salon.com — "He said, as people will, anything to make the pain stop. And we essentially followed every word and various uniformed public servants of the United States went running all over the country to various places that Zubaydah said were targets, and were not. Ultimately, we tortured an insane man and ran screaming at every word he uttered."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • spinchange, on 05/10/2008, -4/+23"What has largely worked in all the interrogations, what we got -- and in many cases it's not very much -- but whatever we got, for the most part occurred because we were, let's just say, a little more clever than that. Instead of going medieval, which is the tactic our enemies here embrace, we essentially find a way to confuse their expectations. In many cases, just by treating them as human beings we have created an environment where we get what we so desperately need, which is information that might help save American lives."
    • sanman, on 05/10/2008, -39/+3So how come the terrorists see the benefit of torturing so much?
      And how come the liberals see the benefit in speaking up on behalf of the terrorists?
      • spinchange, on 05/10/2008, -2/+27Because their terrorists. They also see the benefit of committing suicide and taking out innocent women and childern in the process.
        Do "conservatives" see the benefit of doing that too? (I'm not a "liberal" either, btw)
      • ryanisnotsuper, on 05/10/2008, -2/+23Because liberals are not evil.
        • gerbil20, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Just stupid and very very misguided.
      • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -2/+21Liberals are a lot smarter, on average, than you.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the average liberal is about 33% smarter than the average conservative.

          Unfortunately this enables them to see both sides of issues and think independently about issues and solutions which makes decisive decision making more difficult, or take longer because they seek consensus.

          Where as conservatives tend to be more likely to coalesce around a single idea, right or wrong, and go with it.
          • gerbil20, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You just love the sound of your voice, don't you?
      • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -2/+20Seems to me the one speaking up on behalf of the terrorists is the one endorsing the use of terrorist techniques.
        • sanman, on 05/10/2008, -8/+1One can take your statement in the converse direction as well -- ie. that speaking up on behalf of terrorists results in endorsing the use of terrorist techniques
          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -0/+11That doesn't even make sense. My saying "torture is bad, we shouldn't torture terrorists" is not endorsing terrorist techniques. Has the world gone nuts? How is it that suggesting that we not act like cruel, inhuman monsters, like they do, equivalent to taking their side? I mean, I can't think of a more clear message that you don't support terrorism, but apparently you're just some kind of depraved sadist who gets his jollies off by strapping people's nuts to car batteries.
    • oldgal, on 05/10/2008, -1/+21Who is speaking up on behalf of the terrorists? Is saying that harsh techniques don't work speaking on behalf of the terrorists? As a liberal I would like to see us be better human beings than the terrorists.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -13/+5As a liberal, you should also value above all, the value of human lives. Lets say a terrorist group kidnaps a school bus, handcuffs the kids to the bus, and then ditch the bus in the middle of the desert. You capture the terrorists, but they won't tell you where the bus is. Which is more moral? let the kids die, or beat the answer out of them?
        • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -1/+13It would be more moral to beat the answer out of them if you could, but these terrorist are not gullible little kids. So its not going to work. Their purpose is to kill infidels. If you have them in custody, then that busload of kids is likely to be their last chance to do so. Also, the more you show that you're hurt by their actions (by torturing them), the happier they'll be that you don't know where the bus is and the more conviction they'll have that they're doing the right thing and will be welcomed in heaven.
        • boo1, on 05/10/2008, -2/+15Nah, for presenting a stupid hypothetical straw man argument, i would find you and beat crap out of you.
          24 is a show ....
          How bout you make it more emotional for the next episode, and have Jack Bauer's mother cloned 100 times and then put all one hundred of his cloned mothers on the bus and have a bomb on board.....tic tic,....much more exciting.
          Except at the end, you water board him and the terrorist passes out, you run outta time and the mother's (god bless their little grey haired heads) blow up. Damn if you only used your BRAINS instead of Brawn, you might of save all 100 hundred of the mothers....but alas, you chose to beat a guy senseless
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2Was going for the extreme, but I'll give you a better example, which is not far at all from reality.
            It's 11 pm. You're the NSA. You've just intercepted an encrypted e-mail from a Palestinian, saying "The bomber is now in Tel aviv". You give that information to the Israelis, who happen to know that same man already purchased fertilizer, and went through explosives training in Iran.
            Now you're the Israelis. You have no Idea who the bomber is. You have no Idea what his destination inside Tel Aviv is. . The commandos just picked up his sender, and brought him to questioning. He won't give up a thing. The time is ticking though. The bomber is already in Tel Aviv. Tommorow morning, the city will be packed. Buses filled with children on their way to school, malls packed with teenagers. What do you do now?
          • dysfunction, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6"What do you do now?"

            The ends don't justify the means. That should be all the answer you need.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+3Not really. Since the Israelis have this conflict almost daily, this is a real concern in some parts of the world. At times, daily, now almost once a month, roadblocks are set around major Israeli towns due to hot intel of suicide bombers on their way into Israel. Sometimes the roadblocks work, sometimes they don't, and that results in dozens of deaths. Exact intell as to what the destination is could help save many innocent lives.
            So, you can answer my question with a phrase the means nothing, or you can give me a genuine answer. What would you do? I know what I would do, but perhaps there is a better way. What would be the moral way of dealing with this situation?
            And I'm not looking for the obvious answer of "Solve that conflict", that of course is the long term solution. But what do you when you have a terrorist bomber on his way into your civilian populations, and you have in custody someone who knows exactly where he's headed, he just wont give you that information?
          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8What makes you think you'll get that information through torture? What is the logic there?
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -7/+1The logic is that this is a man that would rather send others to do his dirty work.
            Perhaps a suicide bomber is beyond torture, as he is willing to die. The guys who send them, have familiy and children, and they are cowards that would rather send 15-year-olds with bombs strapped to their chests than actually do it themselves. That tells me that all though killing women and children is their goal, they might not be willing to give their own life up to acheive that. Enter torture.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5What goes on in your head doesn't correspond to reality. This entire article is about how torture victims DON'T spill the beans, they'll just say anything to make the torture stop. That's why what you're saying isn't remotely logical.
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I would allow people to torture other people for information, but then they and their bosses for 3 levels up must be killed with 22 pistols by being shot once, every few minutes, in each foot, hand, shin, forearm, thigh, upper arm, and then take gut shots until they were dead. As long as they agree to those conditions then they can torture. After all, don't they want to sacrifice themselves to save those kids lives? They should be willing to accept slow painful death. And we could broadcast this as a warning to terrorists everywhere about how bad ass we are. /sarcasm
        • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty liberal, and in the bus hostage situation, I'd do whatever worked to find the kids. If torture worked, then fine. But torture often doesn't work, and I'll never be in that situation anyway, because that situation is imaginary. Scenarios like that just don't happen.
        • foofightrs777, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4As a conservative, you should also value, above all, limited government and freedom. I'm willing to die actively or passively to preserve our free and open society. What I do not want is to live in a totalitarian garrison state as then you have neither safety nor liberty.

          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1I'd rather not classify myself into being liberal or conservative. In many ways, I'm both. In other ways, I'm neither. Supporting mild physical pressure on terrorists, in the case that they have information that can save American lives, doesn't make me a conservative.
      • lhbaker, on 05/10/2008, -2/+8Every time those imaginary terrorists kidnap those imaginary school buses filled with imaginary children (I'm guessing they're all white in this fantasy of yours), I get sooooo angry.
        • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -7/+4 "On April 12, 1984, four Palestinian members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked Egged Bus No. 300 en route from Tel Aviv to Ashkelon with 41 passengers and forced it to drive to the Gaza Strip. "
          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990 ...
          "A jeep carrying Israeli soldiers intercepted a Palestinian suicide bomber as he was about to ram a car packed with explosives into a school bus carrying children "
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_mas ...
          "The Avivim school bus massacre was a terrorist attack that took place in Israel on May 8, 1970 near Moshav Avivim on the border with Lebanon. Palestinian gunmen from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) attacked the town's school bus, killing twelve people, mostly children."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre
          "this massacre members of the DFLP [ "Democratic" Front for the Liberation of Palestine] murdered 22 religious high school students from the city of Safed."
          And just two months ago:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre
          "a shooting attack that occurred on 6 March 2008, in which a lone gunman shot multiple students at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem,"

          Not so imaginary now, ha? But then again, we've seen your digg history. You justify these murderous animals. It's all just freedom fighting.
          BTW, Don't forget to have your Electronic Intifada friends go into those articles and change them to erase history.
          • Abaddon1125, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6And murder is murder, no matter who's doing it. An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind. Maybe the problem here is that there's an environment where people who would do these things is encouraged.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2What the *****? how is that in any way a repsonse to my comment?
            Or is this just another "Yeah, the palestinians have cold bloodedly murdered houndreds of Israeli children, but Israel is more evil because they kill terrorists, and sometimes civilians get hurt in the process".
    • kevintest, on 05/10/2008, -13/+3When we have the time to play whatever game can be played to confuse their expectations and beguile them into relinquishing information, then by all means, charm the information out of them. What about those instances where time is of the essence? What about those times when every minute we don't act on some information we need to know, American lives are in imminent danger? When your family is going to be near ground zero of a dirty bomb explosion, what action would you authorize to divulge that information?
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -9/+2In that case, it's a test of morals. What do you value most? The lives of your citizens, or being "moral". If this is someone proven as a terrorist, I say, torture him in the most hideous way possible.
        The problem is when the cases aren't black and white. Torture is a horrible thing to do to good people. For the evil ones (You know, those that intentionally blow up children and women), torture is not enough. One thing's for sure, I sure as hell hope that anyone performing torture on my behalf, does so in a "humane" way, not causing severe or permanent damage. I've heard awful stories of torture by the Iraqi and Syrian secret police. Even more disturbing stories of how Palestinains suspected of collaborating with Israel have been tortured by their own.
        Sleep deprevation, psychological warfare, methods that cause pain but don't leave damage - If there is no other possible means of getting the information out of them, and there is a concrete concern that without that information Innocent people will die - OK even though shady.
        Cutting someones tongue out, pulling off his fingernails, pissing on him and raping him with a broom - that's the exact thing our enemies do, and not doing so is exactly what differs us from them.
      • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7The point is that torturing won't get the info you want even *if* you have the right bad guy in custody and you *know* that he has the info you need... In that case, especially if it's time-sensitive, torture is probably the least likely way you'll get the info you need from him. You'd probably have more luck trying a guilt trip on him. Think about it. If he's responsible for the attack that you're trying to avert, and he's more than willing to DIE to achieve the result, then what makes you think torturing him will do anything at all to stop the attack?
        • InspectorGadget, on 05/10/2008, -3/+5The fact that he did it proves that he doesn't have enough of a conscience to fall prey to a guilt trip, either. Anybody that targets civilians or children doesn't have a conscience. So there may not be a way to get the information out of him, period. That doesn't mean torture is justified. But it may mean that in avoiding torture we face up to some situations where we are unable to get information out of someone (who, in fairness, probably wouldn't give it up through torture, either).
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3It's easy to target civilians and children if you've been raised your whole life with brainwashing hatred, demonizing those whom you seek to kill. It doesn't mean you have lost any values. It just means your values are skewed. Those values can be attacked and threatened. The question about torture is, can you attack ones values, without losing your own values.
          • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Most people have a conscience. The only exceptions are people with mental problems, and there certainly are a few of those. But most of the people doing this kind of stuff are sane. They're bloodthirsty and in favor of killing American civilians for the exact same reason that American conservatives are bloodthirsty and in favor of killing Muslim civilians. It's just the same deadly thinking that's been going on since the first tribal feuds.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2You were making a great point until you started claiming that American conservatives are bloodthirsty and in favor of killing Civilians. Wanting to kill civilians is unamerican, period. Conservatives might have less regard for civilian casualaties, but besides the most extreme nutjobs, they sure as hell aren't in favor of killing Muslim civilians.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Threatening someone with death is different from making them feel pain. Even if they are willing to die, the pain is going to motivate them. The real question is whether it's going to motivate them to give up real information or just say whatever you want to hear.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1That's where the interrogators experience comes to play. If they don't know what you want to hear, and you can verify what they say very easily, then you won't be fooled by the one being questioned.
    • nblsavage, on 05/10/2008, -2/+16The "ticking time bomb" scenario keeps being trotted out by you guys even though it hasn't happened and likely never will.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+4The ticking time bomb is a very common scenario in Israel. In the US things might take weeks if not months to carry out, In Israel it can be a matter of hours from the moment a terrorist bomber kisses his mother goodbye, and until he reaches his destination.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7I'm pretty sure this article isn't about Israel.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1What's going on Israel is just an example of things to come all over the world. It's already began.
  • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -6/+76It doesn't matter what a torture victim says. It doesn't matter "why" the US government is torturing people. Torture is evil. It is always evil. It can never be anything but evil. The fact that it is evil is the reason to condemn it. The fact that we are allowing the US government to get away with torture makes you and I evil.


    • Hellman109, on 05/10/2008, -4/+32Exactly. The US is a terrorist state because they use terror and fear as a weapon.

      You are not a little like your enemy, you are the enemy.
      • known, on 05/10/2008, -2/+12If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. --Oscar Wilde
    • Chassit, on 05/10/2008, -3/+12Very well said.
    • FearLess77, on 05/10/2008, -8/+5Objective morals, how primitive.

      Would you also be, by chance, a fundamentalist of some religion?
    • monoa, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I Dugg you for the first few sentences, the last one - not so much. I'm not 'evil' and nor are you. Governments get voted in (often by lies and misdirection). After that, you gotta wait to vote the ***** out again. We can shout and moan and march down the street carrying banners - it usually makes no difference.

      November will be here soon - do the right thing and it will get better.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Accept the responsibility for your governments actions. Own it. You are responsible for everything that your government does or fails to do on a personal level.
  • DaDrake, on 05/10/2008, -31/+6I think a lot of people don't understand human nature. Torture has existed in every single modern administration; during the Clinton administration, the USA often allow Egypt to "interrogate" prisoners. Recently, France and Spain have received some criticism for similar activities when dealing with Muslim radicals.

    The fact is, torture will happen whenever there is a strong belief it could save lives. Hypothetically, if some terrorist had a pin-code to stop a nuclear attack.... you wouldn't find a government that wouldn't torture him to get the information. The only difference with the Bush administration vs other Governments is whether the general population acknowledges it.

    Torture is like a meat processing plant. Nobody minds the meat they get at the grocery store... but nobody wants to think about how it got that. Torture will never be eliminated, it can only be limited to extreme cases.
    • Jio666, on 05/10/2008, -1/+15You miss the point of the article, though you're probably correct in saying torture happens because people believe it could save lives. This article argues that most of the information they got from suspect was not obtained through torture.

      I think there is also a feeling of them (the suspects) being the enemy and drive to hurt them because of that, or at least not treat them nicely, which may actually, if this article is correct, lead to them giving less information rather than more.
    • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -5/+30Stop trying to justify torture, you piece of *****.

    • mille716, on 05/10/2008, -0/+18I so hate this dumb justifiication for torture. You reason in favor of torture based off old James Bond plots, not anything in real life. There has never been a "ticking time bomb" scenario in the history of mankind so please stop using it.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -1/+11And even if there was, what does it matter? You're not likely to actually get the information out of the person with torture.
        • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5Jack Bauer would beg to differ
          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -6/+8Jack Bauer isn't a real person. This is the problem with America today - people can't tell the difference between real life and a TV show.
          • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -2/+9sorry I didn't think the "/sarcasm" was necessary
          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6Sorry, I know some amazingly stupid people, and so the concept of someone thinking that reality is in any way like "24" doesn't really surprise me.
    • enki25, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Yeah, it has happened in the past, to a much smaller degree. This doesn't mean it's ok to make it legal. That's something different entirely.
  • floatingorb, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5"All you need to know is that this movie is about an interrogation":

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101597/
    • insanebrain, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3... also .. www.zeitgeistmovie.com
      • InspectorGadget, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Roll up your loose change and shove it up your ass.
  • prompel, on 05/10/2008, -5/+36It's not supposed to *make* us safer, it's supposed to make us *feel* safer.
    • oldgal, on 05/10/2008, -0/+11True - if you can't manage reality, then manage perceptions.
    • enki25, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6I think it's supposed to make us feel more afraid of our government. It makes us more willing to give up our rights.
    • booboolean, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4I think it's also party done - or at least supported by politicians - because it satiates the public's lust for vengeance. Pretty much anything done in the War on Terror is supported by the public for that reason. For people who support the war, it was *never* about making us safer, or finding WMD's, or any of that *****, it's always been about getting back at "them" for 9/11.
  • mrzack, on 05/10/2008, -4/+42Torture is meant to scare the public. It's not meant to get information. It's a tool by despots. USA is now FASCIST.
    • frepnog, on 05/10/2008, -17/+3no, it is not, you crazy moonbat liberal tin foil hat wearing goombah.
      • overtoke, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10Yes, in fact it is. People like you are traitors, frepnog.
        • frepnog, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2I am a traitor for knowing that our country is NOT run by FASCISTS???? Right now the Democratic party has still not decided who the candidate will be because the PEOPLE have not made their mind up yet, the PEOPLE decided that RON PAUL was NOT going to be the Republican candidate, we are close to the next presidential election in which George W. Bush must leave office after serving 2 terms, the United States is not run by FASCISTS you crazy moonbat liberal tinfoil hat wearing goombahs.
    • nastronomical, on 05/10/2008, -14/+1I SMELL A TYPICAL DUMB AMERICAN LIBERAL!!!
    • MadN, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4Dugg up for attracting Neocon trolls. (Using both of Dick Cheney's log ins!)
      Notice the NeoCon troll does not address the issue in question, but attacks the one to voice the opinion.
      This is due to the intellectual stimulation produced by listening to "patriots" such as Rush Limbaugh....
      • frepnog, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2shut up, ya moonbat. I am no neocon. I don't like GWB at all, I think ol' Dick is a nutbag, but I DO know that the USA is not a fascist country and anyone that says otherwise should know it as well, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE without being dragged away in the middle of the night and shot for being a dissident. Our country is not perfect, far from it, but it is still the best place to live ON EARTH. Yes we have xtian morons with loud mouths, "conservative" loudmouth wackos, gay rights loudmouths, atheist loudmouths but we also have moonbat loudmouths too and yet they all get to say their piece because WE ARE FREE.
        • Lyk4n, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5How do bats live on the moon?
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Don't try to confuse a conservative with facts. Everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias.
    • PunkRampant, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6fascism - n - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
      • frepnog, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3good job. some people here probably need to remember that.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Damn, an exact description of the United States since Bush was elected.
        • frepnog, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1damn, a ***** moron with no perspective on reality.
  • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -2/+30If torture worked, then it would only be a matter of morals to decide whether or not to do it. But being that it doesn't work, then the morals of someone who uses or authorizes it are just that much worse...
    • RogerStrong, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6It works, just not the way you think.

      You (they) don't just torture one person - you wouldn't know if the person is just telling you what he thinks you want to hear. Accuracy would suck.

      So they torture the person, AND they torture his fellow insurgents. Then they compare notes to see who's story doesn't match. The more people they torture, the more accurate a picture they get. It's a data mining operation.

      This is why Gitmo had to be expanded AND they had interrogation centers in eastern Europe AND they were torturing in Iraqi prisons AND STILL they had to farm out work to places like Syria. They're trying to get as big a dataset as possible.

      And yeah, it's wrong. The US didn't do this (or warrantless wiretapping, etc.) when the Soviet Union was the enemy, and the Soviets were certainly a far more dangerous enemy than what's left of al Qaeda.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Only nobodies stories at gitmo ever came close to matching. This is due to the fact that about 95% of the poor schmucks were innocent guys just walking along picked up by militias that were paid a bounty for head count. They also lost all the tapes and transcripts even, so nobody even knows what the answers even were now. Great job with the data mining guys.
      • cquinnd, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1"It's a data mining operation." A good point, but they were taking actions that insured the data was neither verified nor tested for veracity beyond what answers the interrogators wanted to hear, thus poisioning the dataset from the start, and leading to a garbage in - garbage out scenario.
        Also, the more reports of torture leak out, the less likely intelligence can be procured from friendly sources, which could have been used to validate the information from the prior interrogations.
    • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7If you call that "working"... I'd call it criminal.
      • RogerStrong, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2One does not exclude the other.
        As I said, it's both.
  • Ne007, on 05/10/2008, -0/+19Torture and incompetency in our government and armed forces?

    George W. says "PROMOTIONS FOR EVERYBODY!"
  • dacyac, on 05/10/2008, -1/+22Yes, torture worked really well for the Inquisition. Look at all the innocent souls that were saved from being tortured for eternity in hell by being tortured for just a short time, here on Earth.

    Whether or not it works, the point that once you start to justify it in one case, where does it stop? Traffic violations? Have you stopped running red lights Mr Wilson?
    • MadN, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1The Catholic church never told why they stopped The Inquisition.
      I suspect some of the victims curses came home to roost at The Vatican.
  • JedicodeWarrior, on 05/10/2008, -3/+17Torture doesn't work. This is has been proven - you put a person in an environment where the only way to make the pain stop is to say what the torturer wants to hear. How reliable do you think the information they get is going to be? In this day and age, the technology to gather more reliable intelligence has made torture needless. Torture is nothing more than a way for sexually repressed republicans to get their rocks off, knowing that they have destroyed another person's will. It's sad to think that there are people who think this is acceptable. Torturing our enemies gives them the OK to do it to us.
    What about the torturers? Did their mother's look down on them in their crib as babys and have dreams that they would one day grow up to flog a another human being suspended by their ankles? If they're so proud of what they do let them step forward and be recognized. ***** cowards, probably whack off at night thinking about what they did!!
    • nastronomical, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2according to who?
    • MadN, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5"cowards, probably whack off at night thinking about what they did!!"

      Nah, they go for the "Wide Stance" in airport bathrooms.
  • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -22/+2I find it interesting how people think torture can only conducted one way,

    Torture does work,

    Say I ask you what color the sky is,
    You better tell me the right answer, because you are still captive,
    and I can verify the information.
    It's not like after torture you disapear into thin air.

    Also many people crack when not being torture with the anticipation of being tortured.


    The arguement of torture being right wrong or evil shouldn't be mixed up with if it works or not,
    If it's evil then its evil regardless of its results.
    • wonderchemist, on 05/10/2008, -1/+15The false presumption here, is that the interrogated know what you want.

      • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -16/+1Your not looking for information you want, your looking for all the information they have.
        • Aensland, on 05/10/2008, -0/+10What makes you think they're giving you "information" that "they have", instead of just spewing out anything, anything to make the pain stop.
        • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -8/+1because you go out and verify it, if he says he has a connection in a curtain home you go check, that is the whole idea of interrogation
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, the FBI just disregards the 100,000 leads that it gets from gitmo every year because they are all wild goose chases.
        • munen123, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2hey billgoatzz
          your a ***** loser
          ill torture your stupid lil ass.
          so much you will wimping like a little bitch cryin for yer mommy!

          torture doesnt work you moron!
        • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1your torture has worked on me, and I am afraid to defend myself against your post :(
    • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8You just explained that torture works to get someone to tell you what you already ***** know. What a great help that is, moron.
      • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -11/+0you have the thinking process of a small furry animal, that was a example. And it clearly it wasn't simple enough for you, because you still didn't understand.
        • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -0/+10Lol. I do understand. If I'm an Islamic terrorist, (which I'm not, but go along, as it's an example) and I have a nuke planted under NYC that's going to go off in 3 days and kill 200,000 people, there's not a goddamned thing you could ever do to me to get me to let out that secret in time. Especially not when I'm willing to die to make it happen in the first place.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -8/+1If one was to put his entire family on a bus, and bring that bus into NYC, he sure as hell would crack.
            Or is that too unmoral, and would you rather let 200K people die?
          • apetrie, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6dkapuchino: You watch too much tv. That scenario is impossible, and the word is immoral.
          • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6You think he'd crack, but you must be smoking some crack. You need to think about what's on the terrorist's mind when they're doing what they're going. You have to realize they're driven by totally irrational forces (religion, mostly) that are far stronger to them than anything nature has to offer, and they regard their own life, even that of their whole family (what, 15, 30 people?), as easily worth taking out 200K of "God's Enemies"....
            So again, you can torture your kid brother into telling you where he hid something. True. You can probably even torture a killer to tell you where the body is, in most cases. But if you think you can torture a jihad terrorist and save American lives by doing it, I think you're bananas.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1In that case, what do you do? Just let them die?
          • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Of course not. You do everything you can to try to find and save them. You also do everything you can to try to convince the bad guy to help. Torturing the guy is not the right method to try to be successful in what you're doing. If you can't get information out of him in any other way, then the likelihood that you can physically beat it out of him is about nil. You'd be more productive out searching.
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1If terrorists ever got a working bomb into a US city why would they wait 3 days to explode it? Why not just set it off on the spot? And if you know that there is a bomb in the city that would explode in 3 days, why doesn't the person that told you there is a bomb go ahead and tell you where it is too?
      • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -11/+1I don't think you have a very good imagination you wouldn't make a good interrogater,
        but your simple thinking would make you a good terrorist :(

        But there are still plenty of thing they could do,
        one thing I personally would do is force you to eat a nice pork steak so there would be no virgins for you!
        • bsmang, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Sorry, I can't debate you because you don't appear to have any valid argument.
        • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -7/+0your right about one thing, you can't debate.

          Have a nice day.
    • oldgal, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8The part that fascinates me is that the person being tortured has to give the right answer. That would imply the torturer knows what the right answer is, in which case, why bother. In most cases I have read about it seems like the torturer doesn't even know if the person being tortured knows the information, therefore how can they evaluate the answers? If I was being tortured and I didn't know the answer I would tell them anything they wanted to hear to make it stop, and they would be doing a lot of wild goose chasing.
    • frepnog, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Pure lunacy is in your post.
      • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -8/+2You need to agrue that with these documented countries that torture

        China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.
        • nblsavage, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Nice company you want us to keep.
        • billygoatzz, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1Im not saying torture is right or wrong or if we should do it, but don't lie to yourself to back up your beliefs.

          If I don't believe in torture I can still be honest and say it works, but I don't agree with it.

          alot of the guys in here are so blinded if they found out interrogators wore blue jeans, then blue jeans must be evil.
        • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Haaretz(An extremely liberal newspaper in Israel) writes that the Israeli Supreme Court declared an absolute ban on torture in 1999, though the ruling allowed methods of creating pressure or discomfort, so long as such methods were not meant to break morale. The ruling did allow torture, however, in cases defined as "ticking bombs," where interrogation might prevent an imminent terrorist attack. In such cases, the court ruled that interrogators would not face discipline.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2People don't torture for information. They torture to intimidate and control. The list of governments that allow torture are all governments with no popular support at all. They torture as a lesson of what happens to those that resist.
    • enki25, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6Oh poor poor idiot. What if it's information that can't be verified without spending 4 trillion dollars on an invasion? Like, oh I don't know, asking some homeless Arab if Iraq has a nuclear weapons program.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2Well, you could always send in UN inspectors, being that Iraq did have a Nuclear weapons program until their Nuclear reactor was attacked in the 80s, but wait, the Iraqis wouldn't let in the Inspectors sent by UN Security council.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3The main US weapons inspector that was in charge of the whole program said that there was no weapons programs left in Iraq.

          And that was before we invaded.
  • david76, on 05/10/2008, -0/+15Who cares if it makes us safer. There are lots of things we could do which would make us safer, but we don't do them because they're unjustifiable and against our core principles.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -7/+1Where do you draw that line?
      If you're suspected of a crime, why don't the police question you at the comfort of your own home, while you sit on a coach with the TV in the background?
      If you have nothing to lose by lying and hiding the truth, interrogation will never work.
      Scaring a teenager ***** by putting him in a cell and threatening him that he'll be in jail until his 25 is okay,
      But subjecting a grown man to sleep depravation and loud noises isn't?
      Our utmost principle, which should guide us more than anything, is self preservation, and the value of innocent human lives.
      Would letting innocent humans - women and children - die, because "we have principles", be justifiable?
      The only thing unjustifiable when protecting the lives of innocents, is the intentional taking of the lives of other innocents, and even in that case, it's also about the numbers. I'd be willing to kill 10 in order to save 1 Million. wouldn't you?
      • dysfunction, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6No. But that's because I'm not a despicable, morally impaired person like you.
        • gerbil20, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1No. You are an "alternatively talented" person with hypertrophied moral relativism. And a jerk to boot.
  • JoeVet, on 05/10/2008, -3/+9Torture did work when the religious fanatics did it during the dark ages and it isn't working when the same religious fanatics are doing it today. Shame on the world for not doing more to stop it. The United States should be sanctioned and boycotted like any other sponsor of terror.
    • david76, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2But we have a veto in the UN. And we use it frequently.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I'm hoping you mean that it didn't work in the dark ages.
  • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2sort of unrelated, but does anyone know a simpler way of resizing the margins on a page like this without shrinking the whole browser or saving?
  • Tyrghast, on 05/10/2008, -9/+1All I know is after a long day of torturing the innocent, I can sleep like a baby!
  • icemanex, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8I might be wrong but a guy being tortured will tell you what he thinks you want to hear to stop the torture, making it an unreliable and idiotic thing to try.
  • kevintest, on 05/10/2008, -9/+1It seems like many comments refer to a supposed fact that torture as a means, of accurate information disclosure, is ineffective, but no citation is ever given to support this position. In fact, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to substantiate as much of the last 10 or 20 years of intelligence obtained through torture may be classified. If that is the case, then those stating the ineffectiveness of torture are not forming their opinions based on all the available data. Those whom are authorizing these information gathering techniques may have that data available to them. Perhaps they recognize the effectiveness of these techniques and authorize their further use, but cannot explain their true reasons to the public due to national security obligations. Suppose you are opposed to torture techniques employed by the US to disclose information because you consider it ineffective. Now suppose you came into a position where you were exposed to sensitive national security information that overwhelmingly confirmed just the opposite of your opinion and you had a say in whether these techniques should continue or not. Also suppose that your vote on the subject will be public record, but your true reasoning can never be. How might you handle this situation while still meeting your national security obligations? Would it be similar to the way things are currently being handled?
    • tehbishop, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7I would not ever trade my morality for safety. There are risks in life, and there are risks in being moral but the rewards are worth it.
      • neozeed, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Sadly you are in the minority. Sexually torturing children is kevintest's idea of security.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I guess you are being dug down because people don't realize that children as young as 8 years old were tortured in sexual ways at abu grabhi by US soldiers.
    • Bakebehe, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4If there was widespread proof that torture worked, even in situations 20 years ago which no longer have any bearing today, wouldn't you release them? To vindicate the use of torture? No. There isn't any. Burden of proof is on you.
    • jessehadden, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5Can you cite a single example where torture worked? Because there are already dozens of examples where it didn't work being mentioned throughout this page. People used to confess to being witches, in traffic with Satan, while being tortured. I think that, after a few thousand years of civilization, that when you torture someone, that person will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Easy.
        In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain describes how he was severely injured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi - and how his North Vietnamese interrogators used his injuries to extract information.
        "Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate," he wrote.
        "I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."
        The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."
        • Linzee82, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3But what if McCain hadn't known anything like that. They still would've tortured him, and eventually he would have said anything to make the pain stop. We're not trying to say you can't get someone to talk, we're questioning the validity of what tortured suspects say. If someone tortures me long enough, I'll tell them I'm Prince Charles' evil twin who was locked in a dungeon for the past 40 years if it's what I thought they wanted to hear. You get better, more reliable information with "soft" interrogation techniques.
      • lhbaker, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2McCain lost a lot of respect of a number of former POW's for giving in after being 'knocked around a little.' Plus, he strongly and openly opposed torture until he started running for PoTUS. To do that, he needed Bush's endorsement, and after Bush 'knocked him around a little' he caved on that, too. McCain has proven that he can be made to say anything, if only someone knocks him around a little. I don't want that weak kneed sissy with his finger on the button.
    • lhbaker, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6Baaaaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaa. The government is just protecting me. Terrorists are everywhere. Muslims are evil. Baaaa. Baaaaaa. Baaaaaaa.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2Electronic Intifada Is here I see.
        Oh well, was a good thread until you spammers got here.
        • theviceroy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3I'm not Islamic but I would sure support a jihad against neocon idiocy and evil.
  • nastronomical, on 05/10/2008, -17/+2Says who? a Magazine write? Speak to military intel officers and see what they say. It amazes me that americans who consider themselves educated and Elite will believe anything preached on the left without a shred of evidence.
    • overtoke, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4You are a ***** idiot.
    • apetrie, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Stop using the word elite like its has a negative connotation. Try looking into the research, no its not magazine writers who say it doesn't work, its actual people who have been involved and the writer is just reporting it. It amazes me that americans who consider themselves intelligent will believe anything preached by the right despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
    • munen123, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2your right wing nut job fagtronomical.
    • lhbaker, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5It's obvious that you are neither educated nor elite, and that you hold a grudge against people who have bettered themselves. The irony here is that you seem to support Bush and the Republican party, who run on a platform that people can and should better themselves, which you obviously didn't do. It's painful to even think about how stupid you must be in real life.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I am a former United States Army Officer. Air Defense Artillery.

      Torture does not work.
  • FLUX, on 05/10/2008, -18/+2if torture didn't work it would not be used
    torture works no matter what the so called experts say.If some one starts pulling my fingernails out with pliers I'm gonna tell them any thing they want to know
    • apetrie, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Thats the problem, you idiot. You will tell them ANYTHING to make it stop.
      Your statement makes no sense, no matter what the evidence says you are going to choose to believe the opposite. You are a fool, oh and.. a bad person.
      • RogerStrong, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1That's why they don't just torture one person. In a tinpot dictatorship they also round up and torture everyone around associated with you - family, friends, and any fellow insurgents they can catch.

        Then they compare notes to see who's story doesn't match. The more people they torture, the more accurate a picture they get. It's a data mining operation.

        This is why Gitmo had to be expanded AND they had interrogation centers in eastern Europe AND they were torturing in Iraqi prisons AND STILL they had to farm out work to places like Syria. They're trying to get as big a dataset as possible.

        And yeah, it's wrong. The US didn't do this (or warrantless wiretapping, etc.) when the Soviet Union was the enemy, and the Soviets were certainly a far more dangerous enemy than what's left of al Qaeda.
    • pushmouse, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6You'll tell them anything to get them to stop not what they want to know.
    • neozeed, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Yes, sexually torturing children, is viable, and a good thing. Read John Yoo's papers, and you'll see what kind of evil you are supporting.
      I hope you aren't religious.
    • munen123, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3FLUX = moron retard idoit
    • Bakebehe, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Exactly. If they asked you to say the sky was red you'd do it. if they asked you if the house they were targeting was the right one you'd tell them it was, anything to make them stop.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1So all those witches that were tortured into confessing really were in league with Lucifer? I'm betting if you just randomly picked a few hundred people today you could find scores more witches who have sold their souls to the devil.
  • Maevirko69, on 05/10/2008, -17/+2torture kicks ass.
  • tehbishop, on 05/10/2008, -1/+9Just like in times past, those that actually did the torture - regardless of who told them to - should bare as much responsibility and prison time as those that told them to. "I was ordered to" doesn't cut it.
  • neozeed, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6What? Crushing children’s testicles with pliers makes America not only safer, but a better nation. John Yoo has done more for America's safety than any other American.
    We should all sleep better knowing that children have been sexually tortured for out pleasure & benefit!
    After all, if it was good enough for the USSR (I’m looking at you Chertoff!) then it’s certainly good enough for US!
  • m2tek, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5torture sucks
  • munen123, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6torture is stupid
  • AuriniDMJ, on 05/10/2008, -8/+4Torture works if the victim values their own life more than whatever they're enduring the pain for. A captured murderer, for instanced, will eventually give up the locations where he buried his victims - no matter how much he wants to ***** with their families - by the time you start taking the blowtorch to his calves.
    Torture doesn't work if you're dealing with a lunatic religious freak - in their magical mindscape, the torture is less important than performing Gods will. That's why they weren't torturing the terrorists Abu Grhaib - they were breaking down their personalities. Calling it torture when all it entails is a little man-on-man action with homophobes, or flushing a book of magic rhymes down the toilet, is patently ridiculous. If the Chinese ever invade and lock me up, I hope that's the worst that will happen to me.
    But to get back to my orrginal point, torture works; that doesn't mean it's right - but it does work. Lying about that fact isn't going to improve the world situation, it's just going to muddy it.
    • MadN, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7"Calling it torture when all it entails is a little man-on-man action with homophobes, or flushing a book of magic rhymes down the toilet, is patently ridiculous. If the Chinese ever invade and lock me up, I hope that's the worst that will happen to me."

      You have not researched Abu Ghraib;
      Electricity was used to melt Bath party members genitals; their children were raped and tortured while the parents were forced to watch.
      The perps who were "following orders" got a year in jail, they should be "Hanged from the neck until dead" as in the words of Judge Roy Bean.
    • MrESaulved, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4You don't even buy the crap you type, so don't expect us to.

      If you are a sadist, say so...don't lie about it and then go on about how you would light someone on fire for [insert seemingly plausible reason but isn't plausible at all when you examine it more closely].

      Torture is irrational and unpredictable in result, not to mention cruel and unusual and unnecessary. I would think crucifixion would have answered that question for most religious types.
    • bicyclethief, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Just saying it works doesn't make it work.
      • TedLW30101, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1If it didn't work, it wouldn't be used at all. It would be a waste of valuable time.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1That's the point. It is a waste of time to ever do it. That is why every civilized country has condemned the use of torture for hundreds of years.
          • TedLW30101, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Sigh. You just don't get it. You've obviously missed the point.
  • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -9/+1Interrogation 101: During questioning of a suspect, he can either tell you what you want, he can withhold information, or he can lie to you. If he does the latter two, you can either give up, or find some method of persuasion. Those methods can be: 1. Promises - "Give me his name, and you'll get full protection, your family as well.". This works on a mans hope and desires, and his ability to trust you 2. Undermining the reasoning the suspect might have for not telling the truth - He's not what he says he is. Here's proof. This works by changing a mans beliefs. 3. Threats - You either give us the truth, or you'll find yourself in jail for the rest of your life. This works on a man's fear. 4. Denial - Take away things the suspect takes as a given and has grown accustom to, and restore them only when he's wiling to give you the information you require. The most common example is arresting someone. You COULD always question him at home in his living room, but being arrested is taking away your freedom. This is also a form of threat, as it hints to what will happen to you if you don't cooperate (Jail). 5. Truth serum - this only exists on shows such as Alias and La Femme Nikita. An experienced interrogator will know how to use the above in the correct way, based on the subject being questioned. One might succumb to fear, another will need a combination of Denial and Promises: "You're in jail now, but if you tell me what you want, you'll be back at home in your comfy bed." Interrogation might work. Many times it doesn't work. You still have to give it a try. Even innocent people get arrested and questioned. Put overnight in a jail cell until their questioning is over. Threatened to be in jail for the rest of their lives if they don't fess up, and name the people that aided them in their alleged crimes. Regardless of the Interrogation technique, you always face the risk of someone lying to you, or just telling you what you want to hear. That's why any suspect, no matter what he says, should always be second doubted. Perhaps he's just telling you what you want to hear so he can get out of jail, perhaps he's doing so because he thinks he can fool, and get you to arrest an enemy of him ("Yeah I beat up that kid, but also Jimmy was part of it"). Maybe he'll give you a confession, but before trial change his mind. That's why interrogation should never be your sole method of gathering Intel and Evidence. It has, however, proved to be a very valuable source of information, once you're able to know when someone is telling you the truth. But how does this all have to do with the article you ask? Simple. Torture, at least the way we use it, is only a method of interrogation. (As opposed to a method of revenge, and striking fear on your own people, as used by dark governments such as Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and the former Iraqi government). As a method of interrogation, it applies to methods I described above - Fear (Sometimes the fear alone of being tortured will cause one to give up information, Threatening ones family might even have a stronger effect), and Denial (Sleep deprivation, water deprivation, Extreme Noise, Inflicting physical pain). Like all the methods of interrogation stated, torture also is not a perfect measure. It is an additional measure, and it can break people you haven't been able to break with other measures. But even with torture, especially torture that isn't even close to being as extreme as what you might expect from a Syrian soldier (Pissing on you, raping you with a broomstick, pulling out your fingernails). One might be mentally strong enough to withstand it, and feed you false information. None of this goes to justify or go against torture. It's just a simple breakdown of how Interrogation works. That's why I believe this article doesn't prove that torture is right or wrong, or if it works or not. All it proves, is that those using torture, are seemingly inexperienced interrogators, not capable of correctly handling information provided by suspects. You can claim that torture is unjust and inhumane, you can claim that it is a necessity in this sick sad world we live in where our enemies don't even blink before killing women and children. Whatever your opinion is, this article, sadly, won't strengthen or weaken your argument.
  • MadN, on 05/10/2008, -2/+9I would rather die a patriot in freedom; than live, as a coward, though torture.
    • AsylumAleikum, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" --Samuel Jackson
  • dkapuchino, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5Damn digg ignoring my line breaks.
    Digg down the one above. Digg this one up :)
    Interrogation 101:
    During questioning of a suspect, he can either tell you what you want, he can withhold information, or he can lie to you. If he does the latter two, you can either give up, or find some method of persuasion. Those methods can be:
    1. Promises - "Give me his name, and you'll get full protection, your family as well.". This works on a mans hope and desires, and his ability to trust you
    2. Undermining the reasoning the suspect might have for not telling the truth - He's not what he says he is. Here's proof. This works by changing a mans beliefs.
    3. Threats - You either give us the truth, or you'll find yourself in jail for the rest of your life. This works on a man's fear.
    4. Denial - Take away things the suspect takes as a given and has grown accustom to, and restore them only when he's wiling to give you the information you require. The most common example is arresting someone. You COULD always question him at home in his living room, but being arrested is taking away your freedom. This is also a form of threat, as it hints to what will happen to you if you don't cooperate (Jail).
    5. Truth serum - this only exists on shows such as Alias and La Femme Nikita.

    An experienced interrogator will know how to use the above in the correct way, based on the subject being questioned. One might succumb to fear, another will need a combination of Denial and Promises: "You're in jail now, but if you tell me what you want, you'll be back at home in your comfy bed."
    Interrogation might work. Many times it doesn't work. You still have to give it a try. Even innocent people get arrested and questioned. Put overnight in a jail cell until their questioning is over. Threatened to be in jail for the rest of their lives if they don't fess up, and name the people that aided them in their alleged crimes.
    Regardless of the Interrogation technique, you always face the risk of someone lying to you, or just telling you what you want to hear. That's why any suspect, no matter what he says, should always be second doubted. Perhaps he's just telling you what you want to hear so he can get out of jail, perhaps he's doing so because he thinks he can fool, and get you to arrest an enemy of him ("Yeah I beat up that kid, but also Jimmy was part of it"). Maybe he'll give you a confession, but before trial change his mind.
    That's why interrogation should never be your sole method of gathering Intel and Evidence. It has, however, proved to be a very valuable source of information, once you're able to know when someone is telling you the truth.
    But how does this all have to do with the article you ask? Simple. Torture, at least the way we use it, is only a method of interrogation. (As opposed to a method of revenge, and striking fear on your own people, as used by dark governments such as Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and the former Iraqi government).
    As a method of interrogation, it applies to methods I described above - Fear (Sometimes the fear alone of being tortured will cause one to give up information, Threatening ones family might even have a stronger effect), and Denial (Sleep deprivation, water deprivation, Extreme Noise, Inflicting physical pain).
    Like all the methods of interrogation stated, torture also is not a perfect measure. It is an additional measure, and it can break people you haven't been able to break with other measures. But even with torture, especially torture that isn't even close to being as extreme as what you might expect from a Syrian soldier (Pissing on you, raping you with a broomstick, pulling out your fingernails). One might be mentally strong enough to withstand it, and feed you false information.
    None of this goes to justify or go against torture. It's just a simple breakdown of how Interrogation works. That's why I believe this article doesn't prove that torture is right or wrong, or if it works or not. All it proves, is that those using torture, are seemingly inexperienced interrogators, not capable of correctly handling information provided by suspects.
    You can claim that torture is unjust and inhumane, or you can claim that it is a necessity in this sick sad world we live in where our enemies don't even blink before killing women and children. Whatever your opinion is, this article, sadly, won't strengthen or weaken your argument.
    • Apocrypha, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4Hmm, seems your marines don't "even blink" when raping and murdering woman and children either (and whole families). How quickly you forget the atrocities committed by your own soldiers in Iraq. How very convenient for you.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The only difference is that when an American does something like that, he gets thrown into jail for the rest of his life, or the death penalty. When one your "Freedom fighters" murders a child, he gets 72 virgins in heaven and hero status from his government.
  • rda1441, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Yeah, but it makes me feel better.
  • doubleaught, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Sept 7, 2006. Doesn't change the content but personally I'd like to see somewhat current material. Not going to bury because I hate the way this administration handles torture, but meh.
  • adsbyeaaaaaaarl, on 05/10/2008, -7/+4Torture Rocks! We need more torture to keep us safe. BTW, coercive interrogation is *not* torture.
    • orangefly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2yes it is....and also unamerican....how did the republican party become so anit-american....
    • Apocrypha, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Well I'm opening a torture booth, you are invited to be the first ***** to be tortured if you think it "Rocks" so much. ***** punk. This is why teens can't vote and their opinions don't count. Because you can't formulate a coherent and intelligent ***** thought to save your pathetic little life.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Why do you hate America so much?
  • nuentendu, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Impeach for peace.
  • lhbaker, on 05/10/2008, -0/+10I love all the ticking time bomb scenarios posted by supporters of torture. You can tell they watch ***** tons of TV, and don't have any idea how things actually work. In their world, murders get solved in 56 minutes, bombs are diffused by cutting the blue wire (or is it the red one.... Damn it!), shooting someone in the kneecap will make them come clean, give up a religious cause, and register as Republicans on the spot. They also belive that law enforcement agencies have beautiful, high-tech computer interfaces that can do everything and anything with just a few key strokes. Then they sit down, type something ignorant and incomprehensible, and will attack anybody who disagrees with their worldview.
    • monsterette, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3...perhaps a few days of soft interrogation methods such as TORTURE, waterboarding, and sleep deprivation would cause someone to be classified as "insane, certifiable, split personality" as suggested in the article...it's kinda hard to believe what victim says after that {try 3 days without food and sleep....you'll say and believe anything}.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Now you know why television exists.
    • shinythingy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2every action on a computer can also be carried out with the keyboard. i tried it but my laptop isn't on TV
  • AsylumAleikum, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3Waterboarding is not torture. Pass the blowtotch, please!
  • eviljolly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6In short, it doesn't make us safer because it pisses people off. Not to mention it makes us look like monsters.
  • Barakolypse, on 05/10/2008, -9/+0No one said "torture makes us safer." You ***** obamatards disgust me.
  • HonestAbe, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2I don't know why we don't just treat these people incredibly well and play mind games with them until they defect to our side. Show them what makes America great and that we're not monsters.
  • TedLW30101, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1LOL, at the tired argument 'but they will say anything to make it stop'.

    Did you forget that these people are still in custody while their information is corroborated?

    Don't you think that after they get information that is proven false that other tactics will be used to get the real information?

    Also, lol because people loosely define torture as pointing to someone's genitalia and laughing while taking a picture somehow makes it just as monstrous as dismemberment and disfigurement.
    • Apocrypha, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Reading your post is torture.
      • TedLW30101, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Thanks for supporting the point that anyone can define torture as something trivial and then self-righteously condemn it.
  • CaptainHarlock, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I thought it would be better if the military took over Disney World and shipped all their captives there instead of places like Gitmo. Captives would spend their days riding the various attractions while on a steady diet of junk-food (Twinkies, soda, other tasty things that make Americans fat). There would be no torture, only fun and the occasional intelligence questions by our favorite Disney characters. America would have brand new friends and when word spreads to the Middle East (innocents need to be shipped home) things would smooth out. Hopefully there's nothing in their overly zealous religion that would stop them from having fun in an amusement park.
    Any attempts to escape the park would result in instant death by snipers and bears. Lots of bears.
  • amightywind, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Torturing our enemies may not make us safer, but it makes us feel better. Revenge is sweet.
  • Apocrypha, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yep, it seems everyone in the world knows that torture does NOT produce good information except for the dumbass politicians in Washington. The only conclusion is that they actually enjoy having people be tortured. I'm fairly certain the people doing the deed probably get some sick thrill from it. Makes you no better than the Taliban.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1They study all the video tapes of the torture sessions intently for hours at a time, looking for "intel." Strangely they seem to go through boxes and boxes of Kleenex and lots of hand lotion too.
  • gerbil20, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3What I learned from the comments:
    1) Torture does not work because the article says so.
    2) It is better to let innocents die than to obtain the information through torture because "terrah" does not exist.
    3) La-La-La, I Cant Hear You!!!
    Have I missed anything?
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Yeah, you seem to be missing a soul.
      • gerbil20, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1A very wise man once said that "merciful to a cruel is cruel to a merciful". Who is missing a soul now?
  • LoJack, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1We'll do anything to save American lives, whether it actually works or not- because Americans are more important than you all.
  • hoosiernorm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1In a sane world their corpses would still be lying in the desert
  • dulios, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1In Chicago in the 1970s and 1980s, a police commander named John Burge and his merry men tortured confessions out black men. Thirteen of these "confessed murderers" were released from Death Row a few years back. Seems they were innocent.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.